1984 (11) TMI 304 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court: Contracts for machinery sale & erection work not indivisible. Clear terms & separation=divisible.

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Versus Walchandnagar Industries

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Versus Walchandnagar Industries - [1985] 58 STC 89 (Bom) Issues Involved:1. Whether the agreement dated 20th May, 1959, between M/s. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. and M/s. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. was an indivisible works contract or a composite one, divisible into one for sale of machinery and another for rendering some service.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Nature of the Agreement: Indivisible Works Contract or Composite ContractThe core issue revolves around whether the agreements between M/s. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. (the respondent) and M/s. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. were indivisible works contracts or composite contracts divisible into sale of machinery and service rendering.Facts and Circumstances:- The respondents entered into two contracts with M/s. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. on 20th May, 1959, and 13th May, 1960, respectively, for supplying and erecting a sugar plant.- The respondents were assessed by the Sales Tax Officer for the period 1st January, 1960, to 30th September, 1960, and challenged the assessment on the grounds that certain sales were in the course of inter-State trade and import, which were rejected.- The respondents contended before the Tribunal that the agreements constituted a composite contract for the supply and erection of a sugar plant, hence an indivisible works contract.Tribunal's Decision:- The Tribunal accepted the respondents' contention that the agreements constituted an indivisible works contract.High Court's Analysis:- The High Court examined the terms of the contracts to determine the nature of the agreements.- The first contract dated 20th May, 1959, detailed the supply of machinery and equipment for Rs. 84,00,000, with a separate clause (Clause 5) for erection services, for which an additional Rs. 2,00,000 was to be paid.- The second contract dated 13th May, 1960, was specifically for the erection of the machinery already supplied, for a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,50,000.Key Observations:- The Court noted that the first contract was for the sale of machinery and equipment, with a separate clause for limited erection services, distinctly paid for.- The second contract was a separate agreement for the erection of the machinery and equipment supplied under the first contract, indicating that the machinery belonged to the Karkhana at the time of the second contract.- The Court emphasized that the intention of the parties should be gathered from the terms of the contracts, which were clear and unambiguous.- The contracts were separated by over a year, and the services under the first contract were limited and separately compensated, indicating a clear division between the sale of machinery and the provision of services.Legal Precedents:- The Court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Sentinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, which categorizes contracts into three types: contracts for work and remuneration including supply of materials, contracts for work with incidental use of materials, and contracts for supply of goods with incidental work.- The Court concluded that the present contracts did not fall into any of these categories as they were two separate agreements.Conclusion:- The High Court held that the agreements constituted two separate contracts: one for the sale of machinery and equipment and the other for erection work.- The question was answered in the negative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessee.- The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the applicants.Summary:The High Court concluded that the agreements between M/s. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. and M/s. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. were not an indivisible works contract but two separate contracts: one for the sale of machinery and equipment and the other for erection work. The judgment emphasized the clear and unambiguous terms of the contracts and the distinct separation of obligations and payments, leading to the conclusion that the contracts were divisible. The question was thus answered in favor of the revenue, and the respondents were ordered to bear the costs of the reference.